While alive, the pig had room to stand, turn in a circle, and lie down. That’s a requirement before the pork can be sold in a California supermarket due to a 2018 ballot measure.
But the pig probably didn’t live in California. Instead, it likely came from a state that produces more pork, such as Iowa or North Carolina. And lawmakers from those states say California shouldn’t be in charge of how their pigs are raised.
As Congress begins the process this week to pass a new version of the farm bill — a process that happens twice every decade — Republicans in the House of Representatives hope to include a provision that would prevent states like California from determine how others raise their livestock.
In effect, the provision would allow California to apply its law to California pig farmers, but not to farmers in states like Kansas and Missouri.
“My farmers and ranchers love their animals, and they want to treat them as humanely as possible,” said Senator Roger Marshall, a Republican from Kansas. “We don’t need California telling Kansas farmers how to raise Kansas beef. It’s that simple.”
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is in favor of legislation that would curb the impact of the California law, saying the Supreme Court’s decision could lead to all 50 states setting their own rules and regulations.
“If we don’t take this issue seriously, there will be chaos in the marketplace,” Vilsack said. “Because there’s nothing stopping a state from doing what California did.”
However, he acknowledged that there may not be interest in addressing this in the current Congress.
Consumers versus producers
It’s about the consumer versus the producer.
Californians, who make up 13% of the pork market but less than 1% of U.S. production, have voted to set standards for sales in the state to ensure consumers know they are purchasing animal products that are not in tight quarters raised.
Producers say these standards raised costs and imposed a mandate on farmers across the country who wanted their products on California shelves.
Initial investigations have shown that the provision has already increased prices for pork products covered by the regulation by 20%, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
That means items like pork chops, pork loin and bacon for California customers have increased compared to the national average, at a time when many customers are already dealing with high inflation.
The dispute began in 2018, when California voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure called Proposition 12, the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative. The measure, proposed by the Humane Society, established quality of life standards for pregnant pigs, veal calves and laying hens for products sold in California.
California’s pork rule didn’t go into full effect until this year. Pork that did not meet the requirement of pigs slaughtered before July 1, 2023, was allowed to remain on the shelves until January 1.
Major pork product companies – from major processors including Perdue to family-founded farms such as Clemens Food Group – have supported Proposition 12’s goals and moved toward compliance due to consumer demand to purchase products from animals who lived in wider confinements.
After Proposition 12 passed, the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation filed a lawsuit, claiming that California, a state that produces a minimal amount of the nation’s pork but consumes a lot of it, placed an undue burden on trade between states.
For example, Kansas produced more than 600 million pounds of pork in 2022. There are no major slaughter facilities in the state. That means most farmers must participate in a larger supply chain that takes their pigs to facilities in states like Oklahoma or Nebraska.
Flickner said it would be unrealistic for slaughter facilities to consider how each pig is raised before processing, screening out pork that meets the California standard compared to pork that could be sold in other states. So these processing facilities expect all farmers to meet California standards.
The standards require pig farmers to expand their stables to give the animals more space. Or they mean that farmers could breed fewer pigs, which would raise prices for consumers.
“Ultimately, the decision that some farmers face is how to comply with the regulations, how to renovate barns or build new barns to essentially meet the production or rearing requirements for those pigs that will end up as scraps.” pork could end up in the supermarket,” he said. Garrett Hawkins, the president of the Missouri Farm Bureau.
In a 5-4 split ruling that divided both conservative and liberal justices, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that California could regulate what products were sold in the state.
Protecting animals
Brindle, the public policy specialist for farm animal protection at the Humane Society, said it was a matter of protecting animals with the same feelings as a domestic cat or dog.
Without Proposition 12 or similar state laws, mother pigs and baby calves can be kept in crates about the size of their bodies, leaving them unable to move at all, she said. Egg-laying chickens could be kept in cages and given “less space than the size of an iPad on which to live for its entire life.”
“And they are sentient animals with the same capacity to feel pain and suffer as the dogs and cats we share our homes with,” Brindle said.
California is one of 11 states that restrict or ban gestation crates for mother pigs. It is also one of ten that restrict or ban calf crates, and eleven that ban cages for laying hens.
Limiting these protections not only concerns animal welfare, Brindle said, but also has implications for public health. Confining animals to tight spaces can suppress their immune systems, leaving offspring susceptible to disease, and forcing them to eat, sleep and defecate in the same small space, she said.
“Now they’re asking Congress to give special treatment to pork producers who want the lowest animal welfare standards,” Brindle said. “We believe they do not deserve the protection of the U.S. government because they bet against the market and consumer demand and lost.”
Farmers in Missouri and Kansas have pushed back on the characterization of how they raise their animals, saying farmers rely on veterinarians to tell them what is and isn’t safe for their animals.
“The animal breeding standards we have today have been developed over the years through the use of science, with the help and guidance of animal health experts, including veterinarians,” said Hawkins, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau.
States’ rights
Farmers in other industries and lawmakers who argue against Proposition 12 argue that it is not just about welfare standards for a small group of animals. Instead, they say it is a matter of protecting states’ sovereignty.
Ben Goldey, a spokesman for the House Agriculture Committee, said the proposed regulation would provide farmers with assurance that they would not have to comply with other state regulations in the future.
“The Committee’s solution keeps production methodology rooted in science and in the hands of individual states, which is a demand we have heard loud and clear from the American farmers and ranchers directly affected by this mandate,” Goldey said.
While the House Agriculture Committee included a provision to address the regulation in its version of the farm bill, the Senate Agriculture Committee did not.
Lawmakers are still far from a final farm bill. The House and Senate are at odds over some of the biggest spending in the bill on things like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, crop insurance and commodity prices.
